[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [board-process] RE: TC process clarification on conformance
Martin: Possibly, but you forget (as I did) that the conformance clause guidelines is not authoritative at all in the TC process... That's rather confusing: the user reads "conformance clause" in the TC process, but is not supposed to interpret it as the conformance clause guidelines (published on the same OASIS page) defines it! At the end of the process call Tuesday we agreed to send back this issue to the TAB. IMO there are 2 areas where the current process is weak: 1. The current TC process draft refers to "conformance clause" but there is no formal definition of conformance clause that the reader can rely on... Somehow, the definition of conformance clause we came up with, should be elevated to be part of OASIS policy. 2. there is still some fuzziness as what is required from an implementation when there are several conformance clauses in a conformance section, in order to claim conformance (and make a successful statement of use). Conventional meaning for conformance clauses - that we also support I think - is that a conformance claim can be done as soon as you comply with *any* one of the conformance clauses in your spec. To clarify. -jacques -----Original Message----- From: Martin Chapman [mailto:MARTIN.CHAPMAN@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 6:46 AM To: Jeff Mischkinsky; Jacques Durand Cc: Mary McRae; board-process@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [board-process] RE: TC process clarification on conformance I think the conformance guidelines adequately covers this topic: http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html#_Toc170119664 Martin. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Mischkinsky > Sent: 09 November 2010 20:02 > To: Jacques Durand > Cc: Mary McRae; board-process@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [board-process] RE: TC process clarification on conformance > > > On Nov 09, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Jacques Durand wrote: > > > Of course a conformance clause can say what it wants. > > > > The problem is when you have several conformance clauses. > > > > The conformance section cannot say things like: > > "In order to conform to this specification you need to adhere to > > Clause 1 and Clause 2" because that conflicts with the conventional > > understanding of what a clause is: a self-sufficient requirement to > > claiming conformance. > > > > What I am saying is that when a spec has several conformance > > clauses, it automatically follows that adhering to any one of these > > is sufficient to claim conformance. > > I don't think it automatically follows. The conformance section tells > you what you need to do. If it is poorly written so that it doesn't do > that, then it should not be approved as being a valid. > > -jeff > > It should not be required to adhere to more than one (else why > > bother with several "clauses") > > > > > > So that is the clarification I am after, in the wording of TC process. > > > > -jacques > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:10 AM > > To: Jacques Durand > > Cc: Mary McRae; board-process@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: Re: [board-process] RE: TC process clarification on > > conformance > > > > its a conformance section with a bunch of clauses > > it tells you what you need to do. > > i don't understand the confusion -- a conformance clause that says > > do a, b, c and optionally d, e, f seems pretty clear - regardless how > > they are numbered. > > jeff > > On Nov 09, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Jacques Durand wrote: > > > >> Mmmh... the reason for having such a thing as a "conformance > >> clause" (with the possibility of having several) is that a clause > >> defines a way to conform to the spec, independent from other clauses. > >> > >> Inside a clause itself, you can deal with optionality and > >> alternatives the way you like. > >> > >> In some other orgs there is recommendation to have just one conf > >> clause: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ , so the question does > >> not arise (the Clause itself is self-sufficient to determine > >> conformance) > >> > >> But because we can have several clauses in the conf section in > >> OASIS, the natural semantics is that adherence to any of these is > >> sufficient to claim conformance. > >> There is no expectation that a spec contains a [meta]statement like: > >> "in order to conform, an implementation must implement at least > >> Clause #1 and Clause #2". That would be confusing given the > >> conventional definition of Conformance Clause (that we also adopt in > >> OASIS). > >> Jacques > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org] > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:39 AM > >> To: Jacques Durand > >> Cc: board-process@lists.oasis-open.org > >> Subject: Re: TC process clarification on conformance > >> > >> Hi Jacques, > >> > >> I think it's completely dependent on how the conformance section is > >> written. In some cases there's a long list of musts, followed by > >> some optionality; in other cases there's a number of choices (if you > >> are a receiver, you must do the following; if you are a sender, you > >> must do the following; that kind of thing). And of course there's > >> the case where the conformance section simply states that there are > >> no conformance requirements. > >> > >> Mary > >> > >> > >> > >> On Nov 9, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Jacques Durand wrote: > >> > >>> One clarification that is consequential for conformance: > >>> > >>> "(8a) For Standards Track Work Products: > >>> A specification that is approved by the TC at the Committee > >>> Specification Public Review Draft, Committee Specification or OASIS > >>> Standard level must include a separate section, listing a set of > >>> numbered conformance clauses, to which any implementation of the > >>> specification must adhere in order to claim conformance to the > >>> specification (or any optional portion thereof)." > >>> > >>> Reading this, it is unclear whether you have to adhere to all conf > >>> clauses or just one at least. I assume we want one at least. > >>> > >>> Jacques > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:21 AM > >>> To: board-process@lists.oasis-open.org > >>> Subject: Re: [board-process] draft agenda - 02 Nov 11:00 am PST - > >>> board process > >>> > >>> Updated TC Process draft attached. > >>> > >>> On 11/2/10 9:50 AM, "Jeff Mischkinsky" > >>> <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Board Process > >>>> > >>>> call info: 11:00 am - 12:00 PST > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> id: 9238410#/654321# > >>>> > >>>> +1 866-682-4770 > >>>> +1 408-774-4073 > >>>> 0800-694-8154 (UK toll free) > >>>> +44 208 118-1001 > >>>> +44 844 493-6817 > >>>> > >>>> *6/#6 to Mute/Unmute > >>>> (lots of other country dial ins avail, just ask me) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Web-conf: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/oasis-process > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Draft agenda > >>>> ------------ > >>>> > >>>> 1. Roll call > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2. Agenda bashing > >>>> > >>>> 3. Minutes approval > >>>> > >>>> 26 Oct 2010 > >>>> > >>>> 4. Primary rep statement > >>>> review in rollup? > >>>> > >>>> 5. Maintenance/errata > >>>> status and discussion based upon dave's email > >>>> focus on PAS submission rules > >>>> > >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/board-process/email/archiv > >>>> es/ > >>>> 201010/msg00052.html > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 7. Potential Issue from mary on OS votes with a few negatives. > >>>> > >>>> 8. review all ROPs of qualified member elector definitions > >>>> > >>>> 9. AOB > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jeff Mischkinsky > jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com > >>>> Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware > >>>> +1(650)506-1975 > >>>> and Web Services Standards 500 Oracle > >>>> Parkway, > >>>> M/S 2OP9 > >>>> Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC > >>>> that > >>>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > >>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/ > >> my_workgroups.php > >> > > > > -- > > Jeff Mischkinsky > jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com > > Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware +1(650)506- > 1975 > > and Web Services Standards 500 Oracle > Parkway, M/S 2OP9 > > Oracle Redwood Shores, CA > 94065 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > -- > Jeff Mischkinsky > jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com > Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware +1(650)506- > 1975 > and Web Services Standards 500 Oracle > Parkway, M/S 2OP9 > Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065 > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]